Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 23,072

My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

Full Story

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10934 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
And the opening statement proves the point.
The reason you reject the gospel is because it demands more than you are willing to give up.
Your sins in other words...
To justify that, you try to attribute Gods character as immoral, using His standards of absolute morality, which you cannot account for as an atheist, to try to justify your own sin.
But you know of God, as He has revealed Himself to you.
You are just in denial.
Thursdays are my favorite days, and have been since I was a child.

when When my first child was born on a Thursday, it just made me happy, the second child was born on a Thursday, it was wonderful, but then I found a calendar from my birth year. I too was born on Thursday, as was my third child, and ten years later my last child was born on Thursday too. I have no choice but to consider this a revelation from Thor, that proves him to be the true god. I am no longer in denial.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10935 Jan 22, 2013
Something would have to give the whole population pleasure to be acceptable to a Humanist, and if it that something did, it wouldn't be rape. QED.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What if committing rape gives people pleasure in the society?
What then?
If pleasure is the deciding factor, as you have stated.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10936 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he will be just like you and any other atheist.
Unable to account for the existance of the laws of logic.
But insisting that you own them...
The theist has theism, the atheist doesn't. Satanist are not atheist, anyone with any type of theism, is not atheist.

All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist. All are right up until they are indoctrinated, then they are atheist no more. Sunday school's primary purpose: converting atheist to theist at the most vulnerable time of their lives. It's easier to scare children than adults.

Btw, teaching a toddler that Jesus loves him, is an effective lie. But then teaching him that god would make his parents eat him, would sort of defeat the purpose wouldn't it? He'd have no future goal of supporting the spell casters. He'd be much more likely to run screaming from that church, and let those lazy clergy get up and get a job.

So do you get yet that atheism is but the lack of theism? The atheist just not theist? And there are no criteria to be met in not being theist. You simply aren't, until you are. Nothing more to it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10937 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
That said, I don't see how the Republicans are going to get voted in again until they adopt a more centrist position- but any change will dismay their core vote.
In my opinion, American voters are more pathological that you might guess. Compare them to Americans from the past. The original political conservatives were called Federalists. From Wiki:

"The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801 ... The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters,[original research?] grew weaker year by year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815."

This is what happens to a brand when it becomes too unpopular. It needs to change names. Conservatives abandoned the Federalist brand, and returned to power as the Whigs, Also from Wiki:

"The Whig Party was a political party active in the early 19th century in the United States. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency ...

"In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected president. Both died in office. John Tyler succeeded to the presidency after Harrison's death but was expelled from the party. Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office. The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories."

The particulars aren't as important as the fact that in the past, once tarnished, voters became uninterested in a party, and the philosophy - conservatism in these cases - had to repackage itself. And as you can see, the circumstances that would destroy a party weren't that extreme in the past.

Now fast forward to the twenty-first century and the latest incarnation of the conservatives: the Republicans. Look at what George Bush put America through. Te nation was so terrified by that that even states like Indiana (headquarters of the Klan), Virginia (capital of the Confederacy) and North Carolina all chose the black Obama over McCain. That's voter trauma!

Yet the party survived relatively unscathed, and was even competitive four years later against a popular incumbent. I think that's significant. Isn't it?

The voters seem to be unable to think critically or analytically any more. The Republicans should have ceased to exist. Certainly the Americans of the days of the Federalists and Whigs would have rejected the Republicans forever. They would have had to go away for a while and come back in a new package. Not in 2012.

I think that's significant and disheartening. You've got a democracy of sorts populated with too great a fraction of citizens who no longer seem capable of governing themselves.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10938 Jan 22, 2013
Interesting... The UK Whigs ran from 1680 to 1850ish and then evolved into the Liberal party. Now that's a brand name difficult to sell to the US.

Today's Liberal Democrats currently form part of s ruling coalition with the larger Conservatives.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, American voters are more pathological that you might guess. Compare them to Americans from the past. The original political conservatives were called Federalists. From Wiki:
"The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801 ... The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters,[original research?] grew weaker year by year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815."
This is what happens to a brand when it becomes too unpopular. It needs to change names. Conservatives abandoned the Federalist brand, and returned to power as the Whigs, Also from Wiki:
"The Whig Party was a political party active in the early 19th century in the United States. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency ...
"In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected president. Both died in office. John Tyler succeeded to the presidency after Harrison's death but was expelled from the party. Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office. The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories."
The particulars aren't as important as the fact that in the past, once tarnished, voters became uninterested in a party, and the philosophy - conservatism in these cases - had to repackage itself. And as you can see, the circumstances that would destroy a party weren't that extreme in the past.
Now fast forward to the twenty-first century and the latest incarnation of the conservatives: the Republicans. Look at what George Bush put America through. Te nation was so terrified by that that even states like Indiana (headquarters of the Klan), Virginia (capital of the Confederacy) and North Carolina all chose the black Obama over McCain. That's voter trauma!
Yet the party survived relatively unscathed, and was even competitive four years later against a popular incumbent. I think that's significant. Isn't it?
The voters seem to be unable to think critically or analytically any more. The Republicans should have ceased to exist. Certainly the Americans of the days of the Federalists and Whigs would have rejected the Republicans forever. They would have had to go away for a while and come back in a new package. Not in 2012.
I think that's significant and disheartening. You've got a democracy of sorts populated with too great a fraction of citizens who no longer seem capable of governing themselves.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10939 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>No one owns the "laws of logic"... I just don't refuse to use them
But you accept their are absolute universal laws of logic?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10940 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Your argument doesn't account for anything. You simply attribute everything to your 'god' the same way every other religion, past and present, attribute everything tho their 'gods'.
"GOD"... the answer for everything and the explanation of nonhing
Would that be the same as the atheistic religion, which attributes everything to a rockdidit?

Because you have to assert the same principle and then test it logically.

Of course if you reject this basic fundamental logical truth, you have just denied your own worldview...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10941 Jan 22, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Thursdays are my favorite days, and have been since I was a child.
when When my first child was born on a Thursday, it just made me happy, the second child was born on a Thursday, it was wonderful, but then I found a calendar from my birth year. I too was born on Thursday, as was my third child, and ten years later my last child was born on Thursday too. I have no choice but to consider this a revelation from Thor, that proves him to be the true god. I am no longer in denial.
Oh that old false analogy.

You are a tease...:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10942 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Something would have to give the whole population pleasure to be acceptable to a Humanist, and if it that something did, it wouldn't be rape. QED.
<quoted text>
But many men do get pleasure from rape, otherwise, why do they do it?

There are enough evidences in history to show that many societies practiced rape.

Now here is the question you won't be able to answer:

Was it wrong for that person in that society to rape.

If so why?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10943 Jan 22, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The theist has theism, the atheist doesn't. Satanist are not atheist, anyone with any type of theism, is not atheist.
All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist. All are right up until they are indoctrinated, then they are atheist no more. Sunday school's primary purpose: converting atheist to theist at the most vulnerable time of their lives. It's easier to scare children than adults.
Btw, teaching a toddler that Jesus loves him, is an effective lie. But then teaching him that god would make his parents eat him, would sort of defeat the purpose wouldn't it? He'd have no future goal of supporting the spell casters. He'd be much more likely to run screaming from that church, and let those lazy clergy get up and get a job.
So do you get yet that atheism is but the lack of theism? The atheist just not theist? And there are no criteria to be met in not being theist. You simply aren't, until you are. Nothing more to it.
Actually that is not true.

As an atheist is merely someone who denies the knowledge of God, that has been revealed to him, then an atheist does not in reality exist beyond the realm of lies in their own mind.

You of course define atheism holding the lie to be a truth.

I define it by the truth.
Lincoln

United States

#10944 Jan 22, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The theist has theism, the atheist doesn't. Satanist are not atheist, anyone with any type of theism, is not atheist.
All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist. All are right up until they are indoctrinated, then they are atheist no more. Sunday school's primary purpose: converting atheist to theist at the most vulnerable time of their lives. It's easier to scare children than adults.
Btw, teaching a toddler that Jesus loves him, is an effective lie. But then teaching him that god would make his parents eat him, would sort of defeat the purpose wouldn't it? He'd have no future goal of supporting the spell casters. He'd be much more likely to run screaming from that church, and let those lazy clergy get up and get a job.
So do you get yet that atheism is but the lack of theism? The atheist just not theist? And there are no criteria to be met in not being theist. You simply aren't, until you are. Nothing more to it.
"All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist"
.....rather desperate generalization :-)

You
have
scientific
data
to
back
this ?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10945 Jan 22, 2013
Which gives my society no pleasure at all.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But many men do get pleasure from rape, otherwise, why do they do it?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10946 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that is not true.
As an atheist is merely someone who denies the knowledge of God, that has been revealed to him, then an atheist does not in reality exist beyond the realm of lies in their own mind.
You of course define atheism holding the lie to be a truth.
I define it by the truth.
As an Atheist, I believe that a lost being akin to youself simply could not be so thick/dense & absolutely full of BS without practicing 24/7 over a life-time. You would be well advised to research the definition of the word "Atheist" prior to insulting the intelligence of an unborn gnat with your current assumption of the word. I'm a DEVOUT Atheist, and DO NOT harbour any lies in my mind re the none existence of ANY deity what-so-ever. I abhor the fact that you have the right to suggest I do. IF there is ANYTHING in your scrotum, you would apologize in your very next post. That though, would be your first post with any amount of thinking in it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10947 Jan 22, 2013
William Tyndale wrote:
<quoted text>
Appreciating nature is a good thing. But I was referring to the underlining mystery, the glue that holds the complexity of what is together.
Try to picture nothingness. No space, no time, no consciousness. Nothing.
Now try to explain it's opposite and how it came to be. Cant? This is the mystery. We are the product of whatever this mystery is.
Here's the trick: when you have this experience, don't go jumping to magical conclusions involving ghosts, which would not be much more sophisticated than looking at volcano erupting or even a leaf blowing by, and attributing agency to it.

But why would you think that such apperceptions elude atheists, especially those of us that are also secular humanists, and most especially those trained in philosophy and the sciences? Did somebody teach you that we were shallow? I wouldn't be surprised.

Christians, who claim a monopoly on truth, morality, and spirituality for themselves, teach that we have no basis for ethical behavior, no meaning or purpose to our lives, are fools, rebellious, egotistical - you know the litany.

I hope that you aren't learning about people like me from people like that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10948 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Which gives my society no pleasure at all.
<quoted text>
But it gave others societies pleasure, where they acting immorally if they defined their own standard?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10949 Jan 22, 2013
jacktheladat1 wrote:
<quoted text>As an Atheist, I believe that a lost being akin to youself simply could not be so thick/dense & absolutely full of BS without practicing 24/7 over a life-time. You would be well advised to research the definition of the word "Atheist" prior to insulting the intelligence of an unborn gnat with your current assumption of the word. I'm a DEVOUT Atheist, and DO NOT harbour any lies in my mind re the none existence of ANY deity what-so-ever. I abhor the fact that you have the right to suggest I do. IF there is ANYTHING in your scrotum, you would apologize in your very next post. That though, would be your first post with any amount of thinking in it.
Sorry, the Bible disagrees with you, it says you do know God, but that you have denied and suppressed that truth so that you can carry on living a sinful life.

I base my worldview on the Bible, not your opinion.

As to why I should apologise, are you saying there is an absolute standard of morality you are pointing to, which I should adhere to?

And do you also think that the atheists on this thread that have insulted christians, should also apologise based on that same absolute standard?

No?

I thought not...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10950 Jan 22, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
"Survey after survey shows decline in religious belief .." not really...may be valid on topix threads. Produce the polls?
I just did. Did you see them?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Lincoln wrote:
.... free exercise of religion!
That won't change under humanist cultural hegemony. You'll still be free to nail a chicken to a stick, anoint it with sheep blood, affix jingly bells to it, and shake it over your head at the full moon if that's what gives your life meaning, moral grounding, and a framework for understanding the universe. Go for it!

But your religious life should be as just as private as your sex life and your financial situation. Just keep your severed chicken parts and jingly bells off the money and out of the Pledge, don't try to prevent gay people from marrying because the chicken doesn't approve, and unless happiness for you requires that you scapegoat somebody or otherwise impose your religious values on unbelievers, we can all be happy.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10951 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It does if you let the Bible explain it.
Man has been in rebellion since Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden.
Since that time, mankind has been trying to suppress the knowledge of God.
Usually by lying to themselves and convincing themselves the lie is true.
They got so successful that at one point, God flooded the earth.
They are also getting to the same point again, which is a sign that Jesus Second Coming is about here.
As in the days of Noah etc...
So it all makes perfect sense.
It boggles the mind that people still believe this is literally true...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10952 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be the same as the atheistic religion, which attributes everything to a rockdidit?
Because you have to assert the same principle and then test it logically.
Of course if you reject this basic fundamental logical truth, you have just denied your own worldview...
There is no such thing as an "atheistic religion"... but then you already know that. Your need to try and equate atheism to your religion is quite telling. BTW... as an atheist, I am perfectly comfortable in saying "I don't know" to something for which I have no real knowledge of. I don't feel the need to attribute things I don't know about to some 'god' and claiming it "truth". THAT is the purview of the overly religious and their deep seated need to feel "special". It must really suck to have to try and drag everything else down to your level in order to make yourself feel somehow superior. I can tell you really don't believe in your 'god' as much as you claim. If you did, lying to support your views would be something you'd be deathly afraid of since bearing false witness is one of the Top 10 no-no's

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10953 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that is not true.
As an atheist is merely someone who denies the knowledge of God, that has been revealed to him, then an atheist does not in reality exist beyond the realm of lies in their own mind.
You of course define atheism holding the lie to be a truth.
I define it by the truth.
You must be doing some awesome drugs to write nonsensical BS like that...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 min Aura Mytha 231,834
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 20 min Gillette 876
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 37 min Morse 16
Siro is writing a new book 6 hr thetruth 5
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 8 hr P_Smith 1
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 9 hr P_Smith 1
Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren'... 12 hr P_Smith 1

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE